Judith Kaye Jansen v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Judith Kaye Jansen v. United States

567 F.2d 828, 41 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 440, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1977

Docket77-1480

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 567 F.2d 828 (Judith Kaye Jansen v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Judith Kaye Jansen v. United States, 567 F.2d 828, 41 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 440, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472 (8th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

*829 PER CURIAM.

This is another case in which a single person challenges the constitutionality of the income tax structure. Judith Jansen contends that the tax rate table is discriminatory against single taxpayers in that the tax applicable to a single taxpayer is substantially more than that which would be applicable to a married person with the same income who files a joint return with, his spouse. She alleges that the differential violates her first amendment right of association by infringing on her decision to marry or not to marry, and that the concept of income splitting is contrary to the fifth amendment due process clause because it is contrary to unassailable principles of taxation.

The district court, the Honorable Earl R. Larson, granted the government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in a succinct and well-written memorandum. See Jansen v. United States, 441 F.Supp. 20 (D.Minn., filed April 7, 1977). We affirm on the basis of that opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*829 PER CURIAM.

This is another case in which a single person challenges the constitutionality of the income tax structure. Judith Jansen contends that the tax rate table is discriminatory against single taxpayers in that the tax applicable to a single taxpayer is substantially more than that which would be applicable to a married person with the same income who files a joint return with, his spouse. She alleges that the differential violates her first amendment right of association by infringing on her decision to marry or not to marry, and that the concept of income splitting is contrary to the fifth amendment due process clause because it is contrary to unassailable principles of taxation.

The district court, the Honorable Earl R. Larson, granted the government’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in a succinct and well-written memorandum. See Jansen v. United States, 441 F.Supp. 20 (D.Minn., filed April 7, 1977). We affirm on the basis of that opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 F.2d 828, 41 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 440, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judith-kaye-jansen-v-united-states-ca8-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack